Obama H8rs complain, “Obama’s not emperor!”

Obama’s got good answers and is willing to discuss policy with American citizens; critics keep making stuff up to complain about. Caption from the White House: President Barack Obama participates in a “Fireside Hangout” on Google+ with Americans from around the country to discuss his State of the Union Address, in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. February 14, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Can’t make this stuff up as fast as the unthinking anti-Obama folks can dish it out.

Their criticisms often vaporize at the slightest investigation, though. Why not talk serious policy? They won’t do it.

Wednesday night, President Obama participated in a Google+ ” Fireside Hangout.” These sessions take their cue in part from FDR’s Fireside Chats. In the modern, Google+ version, it’s not just the president talking. He takes questions from a panel of interrogators, and from people who send in questions by Tweet or e-mail. Obama took questions from citizens.

One woman, Jackie Guerrero (sp?) complained that the Obama administration enforces our immigration laws with much more toughness than any previous administration, ever. She said too many people who shouldn’t be deported, are being deported. She asked President Obama to explain why his administration has done that.

Obama said he’s the executive, and he’s required to carry out the laws. He urged the woman to support changes in the laws, but he pointed out that must come from Congress. His answer took two-and-a-half minutes, and he outlined the need for immigration reform. In a few seconds, he started his answer with this:

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

You as a reasonably intelligent and perceptive Dear Reader recognize that Obama is asking for citizen pressure on Congress to pass reform of our immigration laws.

You as a reasonably intelligent and perceptive Dear Reader are also well aware there is a group of people loose in America who say that, whatever Obama says, Obama is wrong.

So, what do those Obama H8rs say? Do they complain about immigration reform, saying we don’t need it?

No, they don’t even give their listeners and viewers the dignity of talking about the issues. Here’s how Michael Savage butchered the video of the Google session:

Savage posted this wan explanation:

Published on Feb 15, 2013

In a Google hangout last evening February 14, 2013, President Barack Obama explained that his problem is that he’s “not the emperor of the United States”: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency,” said Obama. “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

In a very technical sense, that’s accurate reporting of part of Obama’s statement.

But it’s not the whole truth, as you can see. There is no mention whatsoever of the issue at hand, immigration reform, for example. How can they report it correctly, if they don’t even report what happened?

Some of you may remember Spike Jones’s send-up of that classic show tune, “I’m in the Mood for Love.” One verse of the lyric is, “Funny, but when I’m near you, I’m in the mood for love.” In Spike’s version, an indignant voice interrupts with, “Funny butt! Who’se got a funny butt?”

That’s rather what Savage and others have done with Obama’s answer here.

How many of those sites do you think would like it if Obama had said, “Okay, we’ll stop deportations of all but criminal and dangerous undocumented aliens tomorrow?” How many of those sites will favor action on immigration reform? How many of them will want their children to know they wrote these things, in ten years?

This cheap and misleading criticism ignored the two-and-a-half-minute response Obama gave to the immigration and deportation question, in which he concisely explained the problems and the urgent need for immigration reform to benefit the U.S. economy. See the complete answer in the video of the entire session, at the bottom of this post.

Obama’s critics don’t dare allow him a fair chance to state his position. They have no answers for his clearly thought-out plans.

Complete Google Hangout session from February 14, via Mashable, with Google’s inspiring opening featuring FDR; “Altogether, 16,516 people have submitted 7,519 questions and cast 97,851 votes on others’ questions on a range of subjects from NASA funding to marijuana policy to climate change. Five citizens will also be joining the hangout to ask questions live.”

See for yourself how Obama’s views were covered up and his meanings distorted. Here’s the entire Google Fireside Hangout, all 47 minutes of it (in HD and stereo); the question on immigration comes about 19 minutes in, and Obama’s answer took about two and a half minutes, all ignored completely by Obama’s H8rs:

Update, post script: CBS’s guy who keeps all the records, Mark Knoller, accurately reported Obama’s words in a Tweet, with just 140 characters; why can’t conservative wackoes get it right with 1,000 words and video? They probably don’t intend to get it right, like Knoller works to get it right every day, day in, and day out.

Pres Obama says there are limits to what he can do on his own about immigration. I'm President, not Emperor of the United States, he says.

Joe said he wants to discuss immigration. I said “Sure. Obama’s not a dictator. Obama didn’t say he wants to be dictator. Our immigration policies would make Jesus weep, and need to be changed. Wondering about democrat Obama’s dictatorial tendencies distracts from serious discussions we need to have, including how to change our immigration system — which GOP now says they will filibuster in both the Senate and House (in the House withe the Hastert Filibuster “rule”).”

Joe replied:

And yet you never even responded one word to my viewpoint of immigration. Why? The whole immigration dialogue has died down in Washington why?

I understand the bills are moving. No thanks to people who claim Obama wants to be dictator, but even Sen. Rubio understands that the GOP is dead to all Hispanics unless something moves, and out of desperation, they are moving bills.

Which isn’t to say it’s going to be easy. True the GOP mottoe that nothing is good unless it pushes poor people under the wheels of the Juggernaut, GOP plans generally require immigrants to offer a pound of their own flesh.

Because Obama is out making the sequester as painful as possible by doing stupid stuff like closing the White House for tours (even when people have privately offered to pay for them and his one golf trip with Tiger Woods was more expensive than a year’s worth of tours).

No, a golf trip with Tiger Woods does NOT cost a year of White House tours — maybe a day’s tour. So-called conservatives’ divorce from reality is a major block to getting anything done. This is one more example.

Why do you think the Executive Branch can substitute one action for another, when the sequestration clauses require that the cuts go to everything?

In other words, were Obama a dictator as Joe claims, or were Obama to disobey the law as Joe claims he does, he could shift funds from somewhere to keep the White House tours open — but under the law, he can’t.

Which is it Joe? Which way do you want to slam Obama — please pick just one. Is he too compliant, following the law, or is he a dictator who doesn’t follow the law? Don’t make contradictory claims, please.

The major needs and issues of our country are being swept away by ludicrous brinkmanship.

You’re right about that. No one in their right mind thought the GOP would be so stupid, so traitorous, as to go ahead with the sequestration.

We seriously overestimated the brains of the GOP, and the patriotic dedication the GOP has to the U.S.

We should never make such an error again.

Who said they would filibuster any immigration reform? Get specific. I couldn’t find any news article online. I’m not doubting you, I just want to know who.

Boehner promised to pass nothing that doesn’t get past the new House filibuster rule, the Hastert rule, even if though his doing so thwarts the will of America and a majority of Republicans in Washington.

McConnell is sticking by his guns that America can only function with a supermajority in the Senate, Constitution be damned.

You still haven’t responded to my question. Has Obama expanded the executive branch during his time as president?

Executive jobs have shrunk. Deficit spending has shrunk. Federal spending has grown, but at a rate far less than at any other time in history, and less than inflation.

There is no policy in which Obama has expanded the executive branch I can think of off the top of my head; playing catch up by staffing IRS up to minimum levels now appears in jeopardy — but if it goes through, it is no expansion of power, and no expansion beyond historic staffing levels.

Have you ever found an area in which you think Obama expanded the executive branch that you’d care to share with us? I would have thought that, had you tried to find such an area, you’d have answered your own question.

James wants to know why it was OK under Bush and now it’s not. By saying so he is admitting that it IS expanding under Obama and James is simply seeking justification. I have some libertarian leanings guys. It wasn’t OK under Bush and it isn’t OK under Obama. What say you?

I think James is correct to call the conservative line hypocritical. Bush dramatically sought to create a new Imperial Presidency — former Vice President Dick Cheney has been quite clear about that in interviews and writings over the past six months.

People who applauded when Cheney pushed to tap their phones now claim to worry Obama’s carried it too far, but Obama’s doing less than Cheney and Bush; people who stood up and cheered when Bush first used drones to strike terrorists in other nations now claim to be defenders of civil rights when they suddenly fear they might be subject to a drone strike — though only Obama pledged not to strike non-combatants, and only Obama pledged not to use drone strikes in U.S. territories.

You didn’t contribute to the ACLU to preserve those rights during the Bush administration, and I don’t think we should pretend you have clean hands now, when you jump on the ACLU bandwagon (but still refuse to even tip your hat to the ACLU for being there first).

On immigration, even earlier, Joe said:

So here’s what we need to do:
One – we secure our border. Obama has done a good job on the border patrol front, but that alone won’t secure the border. We have to make it so the only people who would want to cross illegally are those who would do our country harm (like drug cartels, etc.). We do that by 1) making it easy for people to come here legally – a guest worker program, work visas, paths to citizenship, etc. We need to make it easy for people to come out of the shadows by removing the shadows entirely. Reagan tried with the Democrats to do that, but they kept the shadow in place and the problem perpetuated itself. Amnesty alone wouldn’t fix it. We need an immigration overhaul which makes it easier for poor people to come to this country to work. In that regard, we have to fix the system or the shadows and an underclass will remain.

Tell it to Rand Paul, who now argues we need more shadows. He proposes to block any plan that doesn’t punish people who come to America to build our nation, unless they jump through new hoops.

Have you written him to tell him to back off?

2) We make it hard for people who do come here illegally to stay by making it harder for illegals to purchase social security numbers, get fake IDs etc. We need to do a better job of punishing employers who knowingly hire people illegally.

Why? What’s wrong with using a free market solution here, instead of a Soviet-style bureacratic strangling?

Who benefits from penalizing people trying to make the free-market system work, and why shouldn’t we benefit those who tried to make it work, instead?

You’re happy to allow reform, if enough people get hurt along the way. Why do we have to hurt anyone?

3) We need to give the people who are here now a fine, and then a path to citizenship at the back of the line.

Risking their lives, keeping their noses clean, doing necessary work, paying taxes and otherwise being good citizens is not enough?

I don’t understand why people have to be hurt in your plan. What would Jesus do?

Those who are felons still need deportation and should not be allowed to stay. This will only work in connection with the other items. Unless we stop the flow of people coming here illegally then a path to citizenship would only be a stop-gap.

And yet, when Obama defends exactly that, you call him dictator-wannabe.

I think I’m beginning to understand: You really don’t like Obama at all. So even when you basically agree with him, you need to invent some reason to call him a bad name, so you can keep your image up among the so-called conservatives who really hate him, right?

Oh and you probably shouldn’t say things like that you’re not going to reply to what I wrote because you think it’s a waste of your time and then turn around and whine that Ed didn’t reply to what you said on immigration.

But surely you can answer the question. What should Obama do when the GOP is acting to stymie absolutely everything?

To quote: Because Obama is out making the sequester as painful as possible by doing stupid stuff like closing the White House for tours (even when people have privately offered to pay for them and his one golf trip with Tiger Woods was more expensive than a year’s worth of tours

Hey you guys wanted cuts. Hell you guys want to cut stuff that is equally as stupid if not far more so. If you don’t like the cuts then your party shouldn’t have compelled the implementation of the Sequester. And seriously..you’re more worried about the tours then say…the fact that our military personnel are not getting their education benefits paid for? Hell you can’t even bring yourself to admit that 1: your party has never attempted to cut something it liked and that 2: you’ve never demanded that your party do so.

Oh and as for immigration dying down..yeah apparently you missed that a bipartisan group is nearing a compromise.

To quote: By saying so he is admitting that it IS expanding under Obama and James is simply seeking justification. I have some libertarian leanings guys. It wasn’t OK under Bush and it isn’t OK under Obama. What say you?

I never actually denied it. What I was questioning is why when Bush was doing it you were nowhere to be seen when it came to objecting to it. You can say “It wasn’t OK under Bush” now all you want and it doesn’t matter. The problem is, and pay attention here, YOU NEVER SAID IT THEN. NOT ONCE. 40 years now your party has been the ones expanding the government by far and away the most. And I doubt in that 40 years you’ve uttered one word of protest about it. So why should you whining about what Obama is doing be considered anything other then a waste of time from one more right wing hypocrite?

Hell..you focus so much on what Obama is doing or what you think Obama is doing that you continue to blithely ignore that your party is also seeking to expand the size of the government.

Or do you really think government should be shoved up a woman’s vagina in the form of mandatory transvaginal probes? Just for example.

As for the waste of time bit, sorry..considering that you engage in hypocritical bulldrek after hypocritical bulldrek and can’t even be honest enough to admit you do so..it isn’t me that’s the waste of time, Joe..it’s you.

Ed said, “Sure. Obama’s not a dictator. Obama didn’t say he wants to be dictator. Our immigration policies would make Jesus weep, and need to be changed. Wondering about democrat Obama’s dictatorial tendencies distracts from serious discussions we need to have, including how to change our immigration system — which GOP now says they will filibuster in both the Senate and House (in the House withe the Hastert Filibuster “rule”).”

And yet you never even responded one word to my viewpoint of immigration. Why? The whole immigration dialogue has died down in Washington why? Because Obama is out making the sequester as painful as possible by doing stupid stuff like closing the White House for tours (even when people have privately offered to pay for them and his one golf trip with Tiger Woods was more expensive than a year’s worth of tours). The major needs and issues of our country are being swept away by ludicrous brinkmanship.

Who said they would filibuster any immigration reform? Get specific. I couldn’t find any news article online. I’m not doubting you, I just want to know who.

You still haven’t responded to my question. Has Obama expanded the executive branch during his time as president? James wants to know why it was OK under Bush and now it’s not. By saying so he is admitting that it IS expanding under Obama and James is simply seeking justification. I have some libertarian leanings guys. It wasn’t OK under Bush and it isn’t OK under Obama. What say you?

James, you waste a lot of time by writing. I’m not going to respond because it would be a waste of my time.

After 9/11, Republicans insisted that the United States was “at war” with al Qaeda — a reversal from the Clinton administration, which prosecuted terrorism as crime. And because of this “War on Terror,” they claimed the Constitution endowed W. with vastly expanded executive powers, including the authority to spy on Americans, kidnap people, torture them, hold them indefinitely, set up torture gulags all over the world, launch drone attacks, launch pre-emptive wars, and so on.

All of that authority, Republican partisans eagerly ceded to the President, while smearing civil liberties groups like the ACLU as being terror-loving traitors. But now that there’s a Democrat in the White House, Bush/Cheney followers are today celebrating Rand Paul’s “greatness” for his stand on civil liberties.

I just have one question for them.

If the president doesn’t have the authority to launch a drone strike against an American citizen on US soil, why does he have the right to crush a child’s testicles?

Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty…

Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…

Yoo: I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.
~~~~

Joe, I have a question for you. Can you come up with any actual criticism of the President that we can’t refute inside 5 seconds as you either making up crap or falling for made up crap?

First it was the Emperor bit. Then it’s you falling for Woodwards fake outrage.

And then there is your fake outrage that Obama has expanded the powers of the President. Through what? Executive orders? Funny..I seem to recall the three Republican presidents that I’ve lived under also issuing executive orders. Hell, W was issuing them saying he didn’t have to obey laws that Congress passed.

Certainly you’re intelligent enough to come up with actual criticism of the President that is honest and not an example of a teabaggers conjured parlor tricks?

And then there is your dishonesty in claiming that we’ve never criticized Obama except when he hasn’t been liberal enough and yet Ed gave you links to a whole list of them.

I had been thinking that you’re different than Morgan. Perhaps I was wrong.

To quote: And what would you have had Obama do, Joe? Just let the government stymie absolutely everything while he’s President?

That should read “Just let the Republicans stymie absolutely everything while he’s President.”

The point is, Joe, that if the Democrats had done to W what the GOP is doing to Obama you would have been jumping up and down screaming your head in protest. We have problems to fix and your party isn’t interested in doing so. In fact your party not only wants to do nothing your party wants to make the problems worse.

Your party is the problem. You need to get off your arse and help fix it or shut the hell up.

Dead Link?

We've been soaking in the Bathtub for several months, long enough that some of the links we've used have gone to the Great Internet in the Sky.
If you find a dead link, please leave a comment to that post, and tell us what link has expired.
Thanks!